This doesn’t follow, as far as I’m concerned. Transcribed software doesn’t compute any function any more than musical notation has pitch or rhythm.
-
-
Replying to @smudgie_buggler @Alrenous and
Perfectly willing to entertain that neural nets themselves aren’t qualia-apt no matter how sophisticated (in fact this seems likely). But if I’m understanding you, you don’t think consciousness is capable of being virtualised by a Turing machine. Why?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because encoding is arbitrary. If one Turing machine is conscious, every Turing machine is conscious. And everything is a component of some Turing machine, so everything is multiple consciousnesses. In reality consciousness takes specific, expensive machinery.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
"[C]onsciousness takes specific, expensive machinery." -- This seems extremely evolutionarily improbable.
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @Alrenous and
... Not only does consciousness (as such) almost certainly come for free, but there's probably a discount on the comparatively dodgy comes-with-consciousness version of the cognitive systems it's associated with.
4 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @Alrenous and
"Whoa, that seems cheap!" "Yeah, it's a great deal ... thing is it fritzes out into consciousness a little ..." "A little?" * laughs nervously * "Well, it's not as if it goes full-Buddhism, or anything ... necessarily." "Can I take a look at the other models?"
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
There's nothing rocks do that's special vis a vis neural nets. It's all just math knocking against itself. Like there's panpsychism and then there's PANpsychism where rocks have not only one full-fledged human-sized mind, but more than one.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alrenous @Outsideness and
"it's all just math" it's most definitely not the same math, though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @Outsideness and
The math describing a rock is orders of magnitude more complicated than the math describing neural net.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alrenous @Outsideness and
regular crystals are more complex than dynamic learning systems? I'm skeptical, but even so being simple would suggest that humans are about as dim as expected
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
it's just palming a card, comparing a mathematical model of a mathematical entity to a mathematical model of a physical entity. if you had to mathematically describe the physical substrate of the neural net it'd go differently
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime @cyborg_nomade and
That's part of the problem: the substrate hosting the neural net is vastly more complicated than the neural net itself, and turning it on adds nothing, from the perspective of the universe.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.